pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: End of Year IS review Statistics  (Read 19985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2012, 15:30 »
0
I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

Seriously, how is that going to happen? Istock have blown it. They screwed their customers and they screwed their contributors and now they are just beginning to pay the price. You have to witness the extraordinary rise of SS as Istock has slumped __ displayed graphically it's virtually a mirror image. That's where the customers have gone and I can't see them coming back anytime soon.

SS are still doing 'microstock' with all 17.5M images priced the same, great search results and a simple site that actually works. That's the formula for success and unless/until Istock adopt it they will fall further and further behind. As sales continue to fall at Istock then more and more exclusives will dump their crowns and give Istock's remaining customers ever fewer reasons to shop there. Istock is now on track to become a 'boutique store' selling low volumes of mid-priced images but how many of their contributors will accept that is questionable. The tipping point has been breached and it is now just a question of time.


« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2012, 16:22 »
0

I don't disagree with you Scott, there indeed can be a very negative sentiment regarding iStock here, and it's not always completely objective. But if I'm correct you somehow doubled your icon portfolio during the last year, so you should take that into account for the fact you had a good year. The question is, was it good enough for having twice as much work for sale. I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

Hey Tom, you're right about uploading a bunch of new work. I wish a doubling of uploads would double my income...but of course older files earn less and less each year, so you can't do the math that way. I know you know that, but a lot of people have that mindset. But to answer your question "was it worth it?" I would give a qualified yes. I am happy with the year, if I could increase income each year with the amount I put in I would take it. But I do agree that there are a lot of moves on iStock's part that I don't like, and I know being on the wrong side of a best match shuffle can undo a lot. So yeah, my eyes are wide open, but I think (hope?) that things aren't as bad as they seems on this forum.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2012, 17:39 »
0

I don't disagree with you Scott, there indeed can be a very negative sentiment regarding iStock here, and it's not always completely objective. But if I'm correct you somehow doubled your icon portfolio during the last year, so you should take that into account for the fact you had a good year. The question is, was it good enough for having twice as much work for sale. I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

Hey Tom, you're right about uploading a bunch of new work. I wish a doubling of uploads would double my income...but of course older files earn less and less each year, so you can't do the math that way. I know you know that, but a lot of people have that mindset. But to answer your question "was it worth it?" I would give a qualified yes. I am happy with the year, if I could increase income each year with the amount I put in I would take it. But I do agree that there are a lot of moves on iStock's part that I don't like, and I know being on the wrong side of a best match shuffle can undo a lot. So yeah, my eyes are wide open, but I think (hope?) that things aren't as bad as they seems on this forum.

Somewhere in between the Woo-Yayers and Haters is sanity.

« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2012, 18:08 »
0
Anyone who thinks the mood on msg is "negative" towards istock, please just head over to any business forum and look at how companies get discussed there. msg is a sweet, sensitive bed of roses compared to all other places I visit.

In 2011 companies get discussed and observed with unprecedented public scrutiny in articles, blogs and comments. Any company that does business over the internet, especially a "community based business" like istock should be able to handle reality.

In fact they should be fully in control of their public reputation and craft it according to their best interest by strong leadership and guidance.

There is far too much censorship on istock these days, relevant contributor questions are ignored, it just makes istock look very unprofessional.

I sincerly hope that 2012 is the year where they can turn things around. Being exclusive with one agency is so much easier.  :-\

If not..well..I think Ill go back to shooting now...

It is sad to see so much talent leave, I still cant believe that nobody from istock contacted you to try and convince you to stay. 

« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2012, 18:40 »
0
Anyone who thinks the mood on msg is "negative" towards istock, please just head over to any business forum and look at how companies get discussed there. msg is a sweet, sensitive bed of roses compared to all other places I visit.

In 2011 companies get discussed and observed with unprecedented public scrutiny in articles, blogs and comments. Any company that does business over the internet, especially a "community based business" like istock should be able to handle reality.


Personally, I don't care about iStock's feelings ... I'm just looking for objective info that I can use to help make decisions. As Paulie inferred, there seems to be a lot of woo-yahers and haters, and not too many in-between.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2012, 18:45 »
0
Anyone who thinks the mood on msg is "negative" towards istock, please just head over to any business forum and look at how companies get discussed there. msg is a sweet, sensitive bed of roses compared to all other places I visit.

In 2011 companies get discussed and observed with unprecedented public scrutiny in articles, blogs and comments. Any company that does business over the internet, especially a "community based business" like istock should be able to handle reality.


Personally, I don't care about iStock's feelings ... I'm just looking for objective info that I can use to help make decisions. As Paulie inferred, there seems to be a lot of woo-yahers and haters, and not too many in-between.

A tiny remnant of woo-wayers nowadays (seems like a lot over there because they delete so many posts and ban posters), and really only a fairly few real haters. A lot of the negativity is based in objectivity, i.e. people speak as they find. One poster spent all their year here complaining about how bad their sales were on iStock, then posted on the end of year stats thread there that they'd had a good year on iStock.  ??? ::), so does that count as a foot in both camps?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 18:51 by ShadySue »

« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2012, 18:58 »
0
Try as I might to post objectively about IS, it's very difficult to do sometimes.  Here's the facts:

My earnings in 2009 at StockXpert and IS were 29% of my annual income.  In 2011, total annual earnings at both sites dropped to 22%.  Actual revenue dropped 63%.  Getty shut down StockXpert, removed our images for all partner sites except Thinkstock, and stripped the website bare.  StockXpert no longer exists.  The StockXpert collection now exists as the Hemera Collection without any attribution to the artists.  It's a shame, because StockXpert was once one of the top five earners.  Now the revenue is insignificant and I'm struggling to stay in business as a result of these losses. 

Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2012, 19:08 »
0
A tiny remnant of woo-wayers nowadays (seems like a lot over there because they delete so many posts and ban posters), and really only a fairly few real haters. A lot of the negativity is based in objectivity, i.e. people speak as they find. One poster spent all their year here complaining about how bad their sales were on iStock, then posted on the end of year stats thread there that they'd had a good year on iStock.  ??? ::), so does that count as a foot in both camps?

Too funny! And actually what I'm talking about. There's a lot of emotion about iStock that I can understand. So post about what you don't like (me? Initial Vetta rates for Illustrators, dropping EL rates, yearly RC goals, separate RC levels for diff't media), but complaining about bad sales when they were actually good... that's not based in objectivity.

« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2012, 19:15 »
0
Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

I agree with your cynicism of Getty. If they could pay out 15% commissions, they would. Thing is, as an exclusive obviously I want iStock to do well. But truthfully, I'm happy other sites are also doing well. It keeps everyone honest. I'd hate to see ANY one site gain a monopoly. That's when I'd set up shop for myself...

« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2012, 20:03 »
0
Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

That is a frightening theory that I had not yet heard of.

wut

« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2012, 20:08 »
0
Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

I agree with your cynicism of Getty. If they could pay out 15% commissions, they would. Thing is, as an exclusive obviously I want iStock to do well. But truthfully, I'm happy other sites are also doing well. It keeps everyone honest. I'd hate to see ANY one site gain a monopoly. That's when I'd set up shop for myself...

I was just thinking about somethin similar today. IS (Getty really) is paying indies 15-20% for something that's sold for micro prices. True, Getty is paying 20% as well, but for macro prices. We're getting up to a quarter less for something that's being sold for peanuts :o . Now how absurd is that?!?

« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2012, 01:09 »
0
Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       


That is a frightening theory that I had not yet heard of.


A very valid theory. Check this out: Dorian Kindersley.

From Wikipedia: "Dorling Kindersley (DK) is an international publishing company specializing in illustrated reference books for adults and children in 51 languages. It is currently part of the Penguin Group.
Established in 1974, Dorling Kindersley publishes a range of titles in genres including travel, (including Eyewitness Travel Guides), history, cooking, gardening, and parenting. They also publish a childrens catalogue for children, toddlers and babies, covering such topics as history, the human body, animals, and activities.
DK has offices in New York, London, Munich, New Delhi, Toronto, and Australia."

Clearly, they're not an individual istock illustrator who just happened to get all their images approved to Getty's Agency collection. The images started at Getty and then were moved to Istock.

Istock portfolio link: http://www.istockphoto.com/Dorling_Kindersley [nofollow]

Getty portfolio link: http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/DorlingKindersleyRM [nofollow]

« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2012, 10:06 »
0
I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.   

Getty sees iStockphoto as a portal with good traffic through which to promote what they think they can sell for the best price:royalty ratio.

No doubt they would like to own Shutterstock too.

« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2012, 14:17 »
0
Getty doesn't buy the companies, they buy the customers.

« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2012, 16:55 »
0
Awesome analysis ! Thanks to let us know what is the difference as to the results in the end ?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
6233 Views
Last post January 08, 2009, 19:07
by lisafx
11 Replies
6858 Views
Last post January 04, 2010, 00:35
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
3985 Views
Last post March 27, 2014, 06:29
by DF_Studios
32 Replies
8936 Views
Last post January 16, 2020, 11:27
by steheap
7 Replies
3670 Views
Last post January 09, 2021, 10:35
by MGsouth

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors